UniFi Internal API MCP Server

list_health

Retrieve health metrics for the current UniFi site to assess network status and performance.

Instructions

Fetch health metrics for the current site.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description's 'Fetch' indicates a read-only operation and the 'current site' scoping is useful. However, it does not disclose whether special authentication is required, what 'health metrics' encompasses, or whether the response shape varies; the word 'fetch' implies no side effects but doesn't explicitly state it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that starts with the action verb and immediately states the object and scope. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only tool with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: it names the operation (fetch), the resource (health metrics), and the scope (current site). The output schema covers return structure, so no additional description is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds contextual scope ('current site') but has no parameter semantics to clarify; per the rubric, the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' plus a resource ('health metrics') and explicitly scopes to 'the current site'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dashboard or stat_full_status, which suggest broader or different metric surfaces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving health metrics for the current site, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling list/stat tools or when an alternative is more appropriate. It provides a clear use context (current site health) but no exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server